Eagles' cap goof

Redskins Locker Room

This has nothing to do with us. In my opinion if you aren't winning SBs then you aren't winning. The NFL isn't about winning10-12 games a year and then losing in the conference championship. It is about winning SBs. I'd say the Eagles are raher poor cap managers since they cannot seem to improve their team beyond the level of their coaching. If they were so good at managing the cap they would have won a SB by.

Our SBs don't mean a thing since none came in the cap era. We are even worse at the cap in my opinion.

This has nothing to do with us. In my opinion if you aren't winning SBs then you aren't winning. The NFL isn't about winning10-12 games a year and then losing in the conference championship. It is about winning SBs. I'd say the Eagles are raher poor cap managers since they cannot seem to improve their team beyond the level of their coaching. If they were so good at managing the cap they would have won a SB by.

Our SBs don't mean a thing since none came in the cap era. We are even worse at the cap in my opinion.

I agree that we are worse at cap management than the Eagles, but only one team out of 32 wins the Super Bowl each year. It is an extremely elusive goal. They have had more consistent success this decade than any other team in the NFC. And a big reason for that success is their effective management of the salary cap. Just b/c they haven't won the whole thing doesn't mean they haven't been a very good team. By your rationale, 31 out of the 32 teams in the league do a poor job managing their cap every year b/c they didn't win the Super Bowl. I just don't think that's accurate. Again, not slurping the Eagles, just looking at the facts.

I disagree. I am tired about hearing how Philly is a "premier" manager of the cap. They have won 0,NADA,NONE,ZIPPO,ZILCH Super Bowls. I think it is time for everyone to dispense with praising teams who supposedly manage the cap well but never seem to win the big one. Maybe they don't manage the cap so well. Maybe they just fit into the preconcieved notion of how to manage the cap. The preconceived notion that a team like say NE has disproven somewhat since they build their teams much more through FA than does Philly. And they have had a few more SBs wins than Philly.

At the end of the day who gives a flying frick if your team does a great job managing the cap if they can't win a SB?

Looks to me like Philly knows how to build a cheap team and coach them well enough to compete. Maybe if they gave Reid more tools they'd have won some SBs. So that's good cap management? Cap management is not independent of on field results.

I suppose it depends on how you measure success. I'd call 12-4 a successful season no matter how the postseason turns out. If you measure failure by not winning the Super Bowl, you're going to be a perpetually crushed fan.

And certainly cap management doesn't always equal success -- not spending any money and refusing to pay players what they're worth might translate into a fantastic cap situtation. But you won't win anything.

As nauseating as it is to give credit to the Eagles as an organization, you can't be delusional about it -- they are winners. You can still be a winning franchise without the rings.

As I see it, there is greatness (Super Bowl champions), there are winners (the Eagles, Chargers) and there are losers.

Super Bowl wins are a measure of greatness. After that, you're either on the right track, or you're a complete loser. What best describes the Redskins in your mind?

I agree that we are worse at cap managemethan the Eagles,nt but only one team out of 32 wins the Super Bowl each year. It is an extremely elusive goal. They have had more consistent success this decade than any other team in the NFC. And a big reason for that success is their effective management of the salary cap. Just b/c they haven't won the whole thing doesn't mean they haven't been a very good team. By your rationale, 31 out of the 32 teams in the league do a poor job managing their cap every year b/c they didn't win the Super Bowl. I just don't think that's accurate. Again, not slurping the Eagles, just looking at the facts.

i totally disagree with this. i see the redskins as one of the best teams as far as managing the cap. now if your talking one of the cheapest, then its the eagles. i say spend all that you are allotted to try to win

__________________ "It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan

i totally disagree with this. i see the redskins as one of the best teams as far as managing the cap. now if your talking one of the cheapest, then its the eagles. i say spend all that you are allotted to try to win

But we are constantly scrambling to stay under the cap because of all the stupid overspending we've done. It would be much easier to work underneath the salary cap if we were more conservative with our pocketbook. We're lucky we have a half-dozen guys willing to restructure their contracts every year or we'd be totally screwed. You never hear stories like that coming out of Philly.

th eagles are always saying how good their system is, not resigning anyone older than 30, no matter how good they may be, and bragging how good they are with the salay cap. I would know because Ilive near Philly and take a bunch of nonsense from over-confident eagle fans.

This has nothing to do with us. In my opinion if you aren't winning SBs then you aren't winning. The NFL isn't about winning10-12 games a year and then losing in the conference championship. It is about winning SBs. I'd say the Eagles are raher poor cap managers since they cannot seem to improve their team beyond the level of their coaching. If they were so good at managing the cap they would have won a SB by.

Our SBs don't mean a thing since none came in the cap era. We are even worse at the cap in my opinion.

If you are making the argument that the Eagles have never been good enough to win a super bowl, then I am just disagreeing with you on that one point.

If, however, you think that the lack of championships alone is enough to discredit the job that their FO has done, I'd say its a rediculous argument.

And no one hates the Eagles more than I do, as much as I admire the way they seamlessly keep their team young.

__________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

If you are making the argument that the Eagles have never been good enough to win a super bowl, then I am just disagreeing with you on that one point.

If, however, you think that the lack of championships alone is enough to discredit the job that their FO has done, I'd say its a rediculous argument.

And no one hates the Eagles more than I do, as much as I admire the way they seamlessly keep their team young.

What I am saying, and I didn't take the time to really outline it before, is this.

There seems to be a general concensus that there is one "good way" to manage your cap and various poor ways. That is probably over simplistic but then again the people making these judgements, the media, have made a science out of being overly simplistic.

These people have annoited Philly as the best cap mangers in football. My contention is this: What do they have to show for it? Yeah, they compete. Yes they have won some playoff games. I am not arguing that they have not been a good team. But I would argue that they have had one of the best coaching staffs in the league and a great amount of their success was wholly dependent upon them taking less experienced or less talented guys and and scheming and coaching them up to win. They are fantastic at it. Reid is great. But look at the actual talent level of thier team. Not nearly anywhere in the bottom but arguably only in the top half. They have consistently over the past 5 years had few weapons on offense. No real RB or WR besides TO. A quality QB and solid line play have been obvious strengths but imagine what they could have done with a decent all around RB. As for defense this is where they constantly have turnover. They do part ways with older guys and have done a pretty good job at replacing them via draft. Johnson is a very good coordinator. But for all this they haven't won a SB. Were they good enough at certain times? Maybe, maybe not.

I would wonder why a team that is the best at managing the cap hasn't won a super bowl. Actually I wouldn't. I think I know why.

Because while they are good at coaching, good at talent evaluating, and have a solid system in place for contracts they simply don't invest the money needed to raise their talent level. And that makes it easy to operate comfortably within the cap.

And don't anyone think for one second that I hold the Redskins "system" in anything other than negative regard. I look at a team like Indy or NE. Teams that use both the draft AND free agency to build a team and both have won SBs.

One question I'd love for us to throw around is this? Is there really a right way to run your cap/personell? Are the variables so great that possibly your cap mangement style is really a non-factor? How could we measure this stuff? I also tend to wonder if the correlation between winning and cap management style is a false one? Maybe I am over thinkng this stuff with the Eagles but it simply strikes me as a situation where everyone simply looks at the whole and sees success so they immediately project that onto all aspects of the operation when maybe that projection is just wrong.